to be surprised that a scientist with a doctorate is religious

[Margaritapracataz]

I assumed she was joking, but no she's a very intelligent woman (double first) but she has deeply religious beliefs.

Aibu to think this is a bit strange and to think less of her professionally?

Only very literal people take that story at face value.

Jesus took the OT at face value. He quoted from it and specifically mentioned the flood when talking about how unprepared people would be at the second coming. You'd think God would have known it was just a story instead of thinking it actually happened.

I agree Lweji the anti theists on the thread are finding it really difficult when faced with people who call themselves believers who don't believe in the things they don't believe in but still want to call themselves believers.

Reminds me a bit of some of the arguments around feminism - some feminists think that other feminists aren't proper feminists. Anti feminists say 'you can't be a feminist, you like men'

I call myself a religious person, a believed, a person of faith, because those words describe, to me, accurately, who I am and what I believe. Other believers don't believe the same things I do, indeed I actively oppose some belief systems, I share some beliefs with non believers.

None of this makes me lacking in rationality, on the contrary this is something I have actively studied, thought about and come to my own conclusions. I am informed and have made informed decisions about what language best describes my views on this. This is not an uncommon stance in my experience.

If a person is so opposed to the idea of religious beleif that they have not done this, and they refuse to accept what religious people say to be true about their own beliefs (as on this thread) then I would suggest that it's prejudice at work, not rationality.

"I agree Lweji the anti theists on the thread are finding it really difficult when faced with people who call themselves believers who don't believe in the things they don't believe in but still want to call themselves believers."

I don't find that difficult at all. I do find it difficult when people say they are of a particular faith then deny many of the tenets of that faith (Roman Catholics, in my experience, are particularly good at this!)

You do understand alan that you arguing against a very particular religious view, a Christian who would define Jesus as God. I personally don't think that is logically defensible, I am not a Christian, have not been one for 27 yrs but I am a believer, I do have a strong faith.

Lumping all religious believers together into one lump and expecting them to defend each other's beliefs is not very logical.... Why would I try to defend beliefs I don't hold?

Of course people can believe they want to, so long as they don't impose it on anyone else.

But to claim that their belief is rational, or based entirely on academic study - even thought there is no evidence at all for it, is surely not a tenable position. "Despite everything, I believe" is surely as close as a rational person could get- not "Because of everything, I believe"

I don't find that difficult at all. I do find it difficult when people say they are of a particular faith then deny many of the tenets of that faith (Roman Catholics, in my experience, are particularly good at this!)

This current pope appears to have some different beliefs to the previous one. I don't see how that is any different to the arguments going on Inside the labour party as to who has 'got it right'. I have no desire to defend catholic beliefs - but I do know some very sensible rational people who still choose to call themselves Catholic.

But again, this thread was not about a scientist who was a literalist scientist - it was a scientist who simply revealed they had a religious faith. There are plenty of manifestations of religious belief which are perfectly compatible with being a scientist IMO.

Literalist Catholic not scientist ... Perils of multitasking

Speaking from a personal point of view, I was raised roman catholic, and that is my faith community. I could easily swap churches, but to be honest it wouldn't make much difference to me. It's where I feel most comfortable with now and among all religions I do prefer Christ's message.
Do I have an unshakable faith in the dogmas? No. But that's not how I live my faith. (Actually, largely following Christ's lead) Yes, I question my faith all the time, it has evolved over the years and it has been put under scrutiny. More importantly, I have tried to live according to the main moral values that go with it. If anything that's a good thing in science, where it can be throat cutting in the pursuit of recognition and funding, and can be plagued by less than honest depictions of findings. (E.g. with the MMR vaccine - no idea if the good doctor is religious ot not) And, in fact, I could argue that having scientists of faith could be beneficial to science, as they may check their own motivations more closely.

But to claim that their belief is rational, or based entirely on academic study - even thought there is no evidence at all for it, is surely not a tenable position.

Has anyone done this?

People have claimed that faith is mostly restricted to the areas where rational thought is not or cannot be applied. Crucially for this thread, certainly not where the scientific field they work on is applied.

And we come back full circle.

I for one would be wary of a scientist (someone working in science, not someone who uses science in their job) who was prepared to believe something was true when there was no way of testing, verifying or falsifying it. Because if they can do it with one thing, how can we be sure they won't do it with other things. I would feel the same if they believed in homeopathy, reiki or horoscopes.

Have you even read the posts?

You could look at the evidence maybe? The work that they do? I think that would be more objective.

"Have you even read the posts?"

Yes. Your last post summed it up perfectly-*
People have claimed that faith is mostly restricted to the areas where rational thought is not or cannot be applied. Crucially for this thread, certainly not where the scientific field they work on is applied*

If you can be irrational in one area, you can be irrational in others. And saying that there are "areas where rational thought can not be applied" is just wrong!

I don't think it's irrational to consider the possibility of the existence of something beyond us and join a community of people.
And, importantly, but you are ignoring it, when we look first for the rational explanation and the natural causes and adjust out "irrational" beliefs according to what the evidence says.

But I'm not sure I want to start repeating previous posts.

I follow a theology based on the philosophy and ideas about God formulated, in his metaphysics, by the mathematician Alfred North Whitehead. Very logical. Very rational, carefully argued and takes modern physics seriously. Process Thought.

It makes intellectual sense to me and gives me a language for articulating my own experiences. Experiences which are mine, but appear to be shared with many others - they often choose different language to articulate theirs. I don't find that a problem, not everyone is able to tackle metaphysics - or would want to.

I am a simple person, i have a simple faith, i am not religious, my faith does not interfere with my work. What is it about a person having a faith, and being a scientist that scares you OP?

Shadowracer: "What is it about a person having a faith, and being a scientist that scares you OP?"

She didn't say she was scared. She said she was surprised. This slipperiness regarding language is one of the reasons it's impossible to have a sensible argument with religious people - they constantly accuse you of saying things you haven't said while refusing to be clear about what they believe.

you do understand

I was responding to someone who suggested that very few Christians take the OT at face value because 'that would just be crazy right' and then pointed out that Jesus did. So did Jesus have it wrong? And that's to believers who allegorise the flood.

In the light of the latest pilgrim tragedy in Saudi Arabia, just the latest in a series of tragedies, you have to wonder - where was god in all this?

These pilgrimages are undertaken by the most faithful - and yet, they're struck down in the very act of worship!

And you have to ask, where has god been these last 4000 years - or indeed, since homo sapiens have been extant for the past 100,00 years, where has s/he been since then?

("One recalls the question asked by the Chinese when the first Christian missionaries made their appearance. If god has revealed himself, how is that he has allowed so many centuries to elapse before informing the Chinese?" - Richard Dawkins, God is not Great.)

There may not be any direct evidence that god exists - but there is plenty of indirect evidence that there is no such thing as god.

To take just one example, every day, more children die in Africa than the number of deaths that occurred on 9/11.

There are religious wars (going on as we speak), slavery, FGM, forced marriages, the subjugation of women - which directly mirrors the totalitarian hierarchy of the Abrahamic religions. (What I mean by that is that the more powerful religions are, throughout history, the more women have been repressed. Generally, the more secular the society becomes, the less repression takes place.)

So I repeat, there is a wealth of evidence, which stacks up every day, that we're all on our own, here, guys!

I have been asked, over the years, why I'm not a Christian. And my reply has always been, "What sort of a Christian should I be? There's a bewildering choice out there." (Since the advent of Google, I've discovered there are around 33,000 different Christian sects, each with the one true way. The mind boggles!)

BTW, I'm not really happy with the term 'atheist'. I'm also an 'afairyist', an 'aleprechaunist'. I call myself an atheist/humanist (with a slight agnostic bent).

defend each other's beliefs

For me the point I make when I have pointed out the beliefs of other believers in the same God is that they all think they are in touch with this same God. And yet he tells them different things. To one Christian he says he is okay with gay marriage, to another he says it's an abomination. To one he says he is happy for women to have authority in the church and to another he says it is not okay. How do you explain this in a workable and logical way? If you say that group A are mistaken then you are basically saying that a relationship with God is unreliable for knowing gods desires. And that would include you to. To counter this with 'but I really do know what God thinks about abc, I am so sure in my spirit and the bible backs it up' and so on, then those other believers in the same God are saying the same with the same conviction. That's to other Christians as I don't think you are anymore from what you said but I'm explaining how farcical it is.

If it is a faith I can't see why you are looking for evidence. If you had evidence it wouldn't be a faith.
I can't see what is wrong with not taking the OT as true. We are in the 21st century and it was written thousands of years ago for and by people of that time. Jesus was speaking to people of his time. It is all you can do. If someone came along speaking to an audience for 2000 years time they would seem a real idiot! We can't speak to readers that far ahead- we have no idea how things will be and what current thinking will be- or even if Earth, as we know it,exists.
Everything is subjective. e.g we go along happily with a particular view of history and then a new work blows it out of the water.
If 2 of us were to describe an incident they would most likely be very different- and could bear no resemblance.
It appears to me that those who can't stand the thought of others thinking differently want a God who is in human form, an authoritarian figure who tells us what to do but it has to be interpreted through organised religion, laid down by people who were able to give a message for thousands of years in the future and it to be accurate for what future people think -and they want him to interfere and stop dreadful things happening and grant their wishes if they think this is reasonable. When none of this happens they say that it is all rubbish and start talking about 'imaginary friends' - but if God is not in human form, doesn't think like a human, then I don't see how he can be described like this. He is not a friend and he is outside imagination.
They can't seem to cope with the idea of a belief in God without being in an organised religion. That is not to say that there is anything wrong with organised religion. A lot of people like a particular building, time, others of like mind, a leader, rituals,good music, community etc. Some people base their life around it, some dip in and out, some have no need for it. Some people don't believe in God at all. It is a personal thing- I don't see why it upsets some people to have others thinking differently. It seems very narrow minded to me. Scientists have as much right as anyone else to have this freedom. If I was a scientist the complexities of the world may well lead to me having a deep religious faith.

It all proves that he doesn't speak directly AlanPacino - people can get the message they want!

She didn't say she was scared. She said she was surprised. This slipperiness regarding language is one of the reasons it's impossible to have a sensible argument with religious people - they constantly accuse you of saying things you haven't said while refusing to be clear about what they believe.

I think slipperiness is at least as prevalent in non believers. :)

The OP put in question that person's professional integrity. She wasn't only surprised.
Or, not to be accused of slipperiness: "to think less of her professionally"

On this thread it was suggested that scientists should be scrutinised on their beliefs to be funded. This certainly suggests at least someone is scared of scientists with religious beliefs. Something that is not a problem for actual scientists that are not religious and work alongside those who are and know their work.

"If it is a faith I can't see why you are looking for evidence. If you had evidence it wouldn't be a faith."

My point exactly. I don't want people doing science to believe things to be true without evidence.

Mehabitel6: "They can't seem to cope with the idea of a belief in God without being in an organised religion."

It isn't clear to me who "they" are in this context, but let me assure you that if you're talking about atheists, I'm absolutely fine with the idea of a belief in God without being in an organised religion. If you want to think there's a supernatural being who created the universe, then why not? Or indeed if you want to believe there a bunch of gods who live on Mount Olympus, also fine. Or if you think that praying to the rain god is going to make it rain or praying to Saint Anthony will help you find your keys, also fine. It's silly, but it's harmless.

All the problems come from organised religion and its suffocating effect on critical thinking, scientific progress and moral judgement. To name but three.